I don't want to misrepresent you..... you believe that the Orthodox are heretics? you belive that our sacraments are invalid?

If that is what you believe, do not feel inhibited about saying so plainly. We all appreciate honesty.

It is not my opinion, but what I can know from the Church:

Taken from the Dominus Iesus

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist , are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

I don't want to misrepresent you..... you believe that the Orthodox are heretics? you belive that our sacraments are invalid?

If that is what you believe, do not feel inhibited about saying so plainly. We all appreciate honesty.

It is not my opinion, but what I can know from the Church:

Taken from the Dominus Iesus

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist , are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

Though I don't know if this is the case of your community.

I am a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. My Patriarch is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. Are we a "true particular Church" and is "the Church of Christ present and operative also in" my Church?

I don't want to misrepresent you..... you believe that the Orthodox are heretics? you belive that our sacraments are invalid?

If that is what you believe, do not feel inhibited about saying so plainly. We all appreciate honesty.

It is not my opinion, but what I can know from the Church:

Taken from the Dominus Iesus

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist , are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

Though I don't know if this is the case of your community.

I am a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. My Patriarch is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. Are we a "true particular Church" and is "the Church of Christ present and operative also in" my Church?

I guess that would be answered not by me but from the Congregation for the Unity of Christians. the One presided by Cardinal Walter Kasper.

I don't want to misrepresent you..... you believe that the Orthodox are heretics? you belive that our sacraments are invalid?

If that is what you believe, do not feel inhibited about saying so plainly. We all appreciate honesty.

It is not my opinion, but what I can know from the Church:

Taken from the Dominus Iesus

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist , are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

Though I don't know if this is the case of your community.

I am a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. My Patriarch is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. Are we a "true particular Church" and is "the Church of Christ present and operative also in" my Church?

I guess that would be answered not by me but from the Congregation for the Unity of Christians. the One presided by Cardinal Walter Kasper.

I don't want to misrepresent you..... you believe that the Orthodox are heretics? you belive that our sacraments are invalid?

If that is what you believe, do not feel inhibited about saying so plainly. We all appreciate honesty.

It is not my opinion, but what I can know from the Church:

Taken from the Dominus Iesus

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist , are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

Though I don't know if this is the case of your community.

I am a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. My Patriarch is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. Are we a "true particular Church" and is "the Church of Christ present and operative also in" my Church?

I guess that would be answered not by me but from the Congregation for the Unity of Christians. the One presided by Cardinal Walter Kasper.

So you cannot say if we have a valid Eucharist or not.

I can imagine you have valid sacraments, that is why we are trying to be in commmunion, Kasper and Zizoulas are cochairs from Catholicism and Orthodoxy, either if it is Greek or Russian, of the Theological Comision for Dialoge Between Catholic-Orthodox.

Ahh, I see. Maybe the first time through I thought that was just a hitch in the video due to poor quality or something. I guess I was looking for the wafer to get up and start dancing and singing a Frank Sinatra song or something.

LOL

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Oh yes, all Christians in the west were suddenly denied the life giving Body and Blood of Christ just because of some squabble between a Cardinal and a Patriarch. EO sacramental theology makes no sense.

Who are you calling EO?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Oh yes, all Christians in the west were suddenly denied the life giving Body and Blood of Christ just because of some squabble between a Cardinal and a Patriarch. EO sacramental theology makes no sense.

Any more than your sacramental theology that says the Body of Christ can exist wherever someone who has "valid apostolic succession" exists, thus ensuring that schismatics can perpetually blaspheme against God and condemn their souls to hell every time they celebrate the Liturgy? Holy Communion is a mystery OF the Church, and exists IN the Church, for those with Orthodox faith; otherwise it really just is "hocus pocus."

No one says Roman Catholics lost sacramental grace in 1054. It was a gradual process. But you already knew that (it just doesn't sound as snarky as saying what you did).

Agreed. Only difference is I would say it was a process that began slightly in 449 (writing of the Tome of Leo) and began accelerating in 1014 (addition of the filioque at Rome).

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

It wasn't magical. It was the result of numerous choices to stray from the Apostolic faith.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

It wasn't magical. It was the result of numerous choices to stray from the Apostolic faith.

Bold faced lie.

Apparently you don't understand what a lie is.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

What is really weird to me is that idea that suddenly all the western Christians peasants who may have never even heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople were suddenly denied the Body and Blood of the Lord whom they loved.

Even if the laity are honest people with an orthodox spirit they cannot have grace mediated to them through heretics. If the clergy go heretical then they ruin the chance of their laity having grace administered to them through them. That's not to say that God won't find other ways of relating to them, but they certainly won't be receiving grace where it is dependent upon the mediation of a heretic. It's sort of like how things worked in the Fall. There may very well have been very decent people who did not "deserve" the consequences of what happened to them, but it nonetheless did.

What I find unbelievalbe is that men and women who loved Jesus Christ as much as St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila did, were worshiping and receiving bread and wine and not Jesus Christ. Such profound spiritual growth seen in persons like St. John Viani or St. Padre Pio, would be impossible with "false and graceless sacraments".

No, it really wouldn't. Look at the OT Fathers. They did it without sanctifying grace.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

I can appreciate your views that our Roman Church (RC for short) isn't Apostolic and all but my guess is your don't go out of your way making fun of Anglicans or Baptists in the same manner. Please don't make these disrespectful comments of our Holy Sacraments. That is just a personal request.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

"A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions."

I honestly believe that your organization has strayed from the Apostolic faith. I am intending to bring you to the truth by telling you this. As such, what I said is clearly not a lie, even if it is, perhaps, a falsehood. At the very worst, thus, I am mistaken.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

'Magically?'

Who said that, other than you?

I see someone has already noted it was a gradual process.

How do sacraments "gradually" become fake. That is absurd.

The proper conditions for them to be sacraments slowly fade until they get to the point that the grace drains out of them.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

St Basil makes a distinction in his First Canonical Epistle between divisions "IN" the Church (parasynagogue) and divisions "FROM" the Church (schism). The former group of people would still be Orthodox but in an irregular situation (and the leaders guilty of some personal sin of disobedience).

Would any groups today qualify as "parasynagogue", in your opinion? I'm not asking for the purpose of pointing fingers, per say, but simply for a more clear picture of your meaning.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

'Magically?'

Who said that, other than you?

I see someone has already noted it was a gradual process.

How do sacraments "gradually" become fake. That is absurd.

The proper conditions for them to be sacraments slowly fade until they get to the point that the grace drains out of them.

That's what I am saying. Its silly. How can a sacrament have less and less grace. What? One day the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, the next it was 1/2 of the Body and Blood of Christ, then the next is was 1/4, etc. ect? Or one day a person's sins were totally forgiven in confession but the next the were only 29/32 forgiven?

« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 06:15:56 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

What is really weird to me is that idea that suddenly all the western Christians peasants who may have never even heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople were suddenly denied the Body and Blood of the Lord whom they loved. What I find unbelievalbe is that men and women who loved Jesus Christ as much as St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila did, were worshiping and receiving bread and wine and not Jesus Christ. Such profound spiritual growth seen in persons like St. John Viani or St. Padre Pio, would be impossible with "false and graceless sacraments". I think the EO position has to ignore the reality.

I agree.

The only way that one could come to this understanding of holy people necessarily indicating the Church is if one does not understand the Orthodox understanding of the Church and its Sacraments.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

'Magically?'

Who said that, other than you?

I see someone has already noted it was a gradual process.

How do sacraments "gradually" become fake. That is absurd.

The proper conditions for them to be sacraments slowly fade until they get to the point that the grace drains out of them.

That's what I am saying. Its silly. How can a sacrament have less and less grace. What? One day the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, the next it was 1/2 of the Body and Blood of Christ, then the next is was 1/4, etc. ect? Or one day a persons sins were totally forgiven in confession but the next the were only 29/32 forgiven?

It's already been explained by Fr. Anastasios that this is not what we mean. You're just grabbing at straws again.

Clerical title added to name to grant him the respect due his priestly office -PtA

« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 06:44:06 PM by PeterTheAleut »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

"A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions."

I honestly believe that your organization has strayed from the Apostolic faith. I am intending to bring you to the truth by telling you this. As such, what I said is clearly not a lie, even if it is, perhaps, a falsehood. At the very worst, thus, I am mistaken.

You are an inquirer to Oriental Orthodoxy after leaving Eastern Orthodoxy a short time after being received. You are still trying to figure what truth is yourself, why lecture Papist on it??

Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

What is really weird to me is that idea that suddenly all the western Christians peasants who may have never even heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople were suddenly denied the Body and Blood of the Lord whom they loved. What I find unbelievalbe is that men and women who loved Jesus Christ as much as St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila did, were worshiping and receiving bread and wine and not Jesus Christ. Such profound spiritual growth seen in persons like St. John Viani or St. Padre Pio, would be impossible with "false and graceless sacraments". I think the EO position has to ignore the reality.

I agree.

The only way that one could come to this understanding of holy people necessarily indicating the Church is if one does not understand the Orthodox understanding of the Church and its Sacraments.

Well please do share. Because from what I can tell, etremely holy persons such as Sts. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila achieved great sanctity while worshiping bread.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Your Church could never cure me of my sins, despite years of confession to your priests and reception of your sacraments. But from the time of my baptism in the Orthodox Church, I have experienced what new life is, have grown in the love of Christ, and have experienced grace in a way that was absent previously. Doctrine trumps my personal testimony, but since you are accusing us of being heartless, I will offer my testimony. Orthodoxy is life.

Sounds like you just weren't that interested in transformation when you were a Catholic.

Only God knows how much I struggled when I was a Roman Catholic. You don't.

Quote

I have countless friends who have turned to Jesus Christ in Catholic Chruch and transformed their lives. I see a myriad of Catholic Saints who done the same and more. I will offer you my testimony. Catholicism is life.

If I were to respond, it would necessitate denigrating your personal spiritual struggles, which I have decided would not be helpful.

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

'Magically?'

Who said that, other than you?

I see someone has already noted it was a gradual process.

How do sacraments "gradually" become fake. That is absurd.

The proper conditions for them to be sacraments slowly fade until they get to the point that the grace drains out of them.

That's what I am saying. Its silly. How can a sacrament have less and less grace. What? One day the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, the next it was 1/2 of the Body and Blood of Christ, then the next is was 1/4, etc. ect? Or one day a persons sins were totally forgiven in confession but the next the were only 29/32 forgiven?

It's already been explained by Anastasios that this is not what we mean. You're just grabbing at straws again.

No I am not. I am showing why your position doesn't work.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I would like to reemphasize what I have said numerous times on this site, though; while I do not believe that sacramental grace exists outside the Church, I believe there is charismatic grace, and that God does not abandon ignorant people who have done nothing positive to break communion with the Church. (Nor do I think a loving God would create Native Americans from 33AD until the 1500's knowing they would all die without baptism and go to hell; there must be some provision for such people).

So you see no difference between the grace recieved by a Trinitarian Christian that is not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the grace received by a pagan?

Not necessarily the case, but the former nonetheless does not have sacramental grace.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Your Church could never cure me of my sins, despite years of confession to your priests and reception of your sacraments. But from the time of my baptism in the Orthodox Church, I have experienced what new life is, have grown in the love of Christ, and have experienced grace in a way that was absent previously. Doctrine trumps my personal testimony, but since you are accusing us of being heartless, I will offer my testimony. Orthodoxy is life.

Sounds like you just weren't that interested in transformation when you were a Catholic.

Only God knows how much I struggled when I was a Roman Catholic. You don't.

Quote

I have countless friends who have turned to Jesus Christ in Catholic Chruch and transformed their lives. I see a myriad of Catholic Saints who done the same and more. I will offer you my testimony. Catholicism is life.

If I were to respond, it would necessitate denigrating your personal spiritual struggles, which I have decided would not be helpful.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I would like to reemphasize what I have said numerous times on this site, though; while I do not believe that sacramental grace exists outside the Church, I believe there is charismatic grace, and that God does not abandon ignorant people who have done nothing positive to break communion with the Church. (Nor do I think a loving God would create Native Americans from 33AD until the 1500's knowing they would all die without baptism and go to hell; there must be some provision for such people).

So you see no difference between the grace recieved by a Trinitarian Christian that is not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the grace received by a pagan?

Not necessarily the case, but the former nonetheless does not have sacramental grace.

Well, according to the line of thinking I am seeing in this thread, neither has sacramental grace, and at best the two groups both can receive "charismatic grace" (whatever that means), and so non-Byzatine Trinitarian Christians are in the same boat as Pagans.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Oh yes, all Christians in the west were suddenly denied the life giving Body and Blood of Christ just because of some squabble between a Cardinal and a Patriarch. EO sacramental theology makes no sense.

Who are you calling EO?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

but my guess is your don't go out of your way making fun of Anglicans or Baptists in the same manner. Please don't make these disrespectful comments of our Holy Sacraments. That is just a personal request.

Making fun of?

Disrespectful comments?

I was just expressing shock at ialmisry's seeming admission to believe in the Real Presence in Romanist ordinances.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Oh yes, all Christians in the west were suddenly denied the life giving Body and Blood of Christ just because of some squabble between a Cardinal and a Patriarch. EO sacramental theology makes no sense.

Who are you calling EO?

Eastern Orthodox

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

"A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions."

I honestly believe that your organization has strayed from the Apostolic faith. I am intending to bring you to the truth by telling you this. As such, what I said is clearly not a lie, even if it is, perhaps, a falsehood. At the very worst, thus, I am mistaken.

You are an inquirer to Oriental Orthodoxy after leaving Eastern Orthodoxy a short time after being received. You are still trying to figure what truth is yourself, why lecture Papist on it??

My understanding of doctrinal truth has really not shifted all that much in the past 3 years. The only major difference that has occurred has been my perception of the orthodoxy of certain aspects of the Council of Chalcedon. It seems you are exaggerating the supposed lack of consistency in my doctrinal understandings.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 06:31:03 PM by deusveritasest »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Oh yes, all Christians in the west were suddenly denied the life giving Body and Blood of Christ just because of some squabble between a Cardinal and a Patriarch. EO sacramental theology makes no sense.

Who are you calling EO?

Eastern Orthodox

Yes, I'm wondering who you are calling Eastern Orthodox?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

What is really weird to me is that idea that suddenly all the western Christians peasants who may have never even heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople were suddenly denied the Body and Blood of the Lord whom they loved. What I find unbelievalbe is that men and women who loved Jesus Christ as much as St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila did, were worshiping and receiving bread and wine and not Jesus Christ. Such profound spiritual growth seen in persons like St. John Viani or St. Padre Pio, would be impossible with "false and graceless sacraments". I think the EO position has to ignore the reality.

I agree.

The only way that one could come to this understanding of holy people necessarily indicating the Church is if one does not understand the Orthodox understanding of the Church and its Sacraments.

Well please do share. Because from what I can tell, etremely holy persons such as Sts. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila achieved great sanctity while worshiping bread.

They did.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

But not really. They were worshiping the Lord Jesus. They were directing their worship towards something they thought was a legitimate manifestation of Him. It was not. But nonetheless they were worshiping the Lord.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 06:34:28 PM by deusveritasest »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Oh yes, all Christians in the west were suddenly denied the life giving Body and Blood of Christ just because of some squabble between a Cardinal and a Patriarch. EO sacramental theology makes no sense.

Who are you calling EO?

Eastern Orthodox

Yes, I'm wondering who you are calling Eastern Orthodox?

I am not calling you EO, I know you have not yet decided on that matter. But the position you are espousing is the EO position, though it may be shared by the OO churches as well. I don't know for certain. Just know that by EO I am talking about the sacramental theology being espoused by many in this thread.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

What is really weird to me is that idea that suddenly all the western Christians peasants who may have never even heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople were suddenly denied the Body and Blood of the Lord whom they loved. What I find unbelievalbe is that men and women who loved Jesus Christ as much as St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila did, were worshiping and receiving bread and wine and not Jesus Christ. Such profound spiritual growth seen in persons like St. John Viani or St. Padre Pio, would be impossible with "false and graceless sacraments". I think the EO position has to ignore the reality.

I agree.

The only way that one could come to this understanding of holy people necessarily indicating the Church is if one does not understand the Orthodox understanding of the Church and its Sacraments.

Well please do share. Because from what I can tell, extremely holy persons such as Sts. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila achieved great sanctity while worshiping bread.

They did.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

So how do idolaters achieve such sanctity? I am really confused now.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

But not really. They were worshiping the Lord Jesus. They were directing their worship towards something they thought was a legitimate manifestation of Him. It was not. But nonetheless they were worshiping the Lord.

Didn't the Israelites in the desert believe that the golden calf was Yaweh?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Oh yes, all Christians in the west were suddenly denied the life giving Body and Blood of Christ just because of some squabble between a Cardinal and a Patriarch. EO sacramental theology makes no sense.

Who are you calling EO?

Eastern Orthodox

Yes, I'm wondering who you are calling Eastern Orthodox?

I am not calling you EO, I know you have not yet decided on that matter. But the position you are espousing is the EO position, though it may be shared by the OO churches as well. I don't know for certain. Just know that by EO I am talking about the sacramental theology being espoused by many in this thread.

You were explicitly talking to me. I was the only one who had made a negative statement about the OP by that time. You explicitly called my position EO and also said that my view was based off of the schism between a Cardinal and the Bishop of Constantinople. It seems pretty strongly like you were confusing me for an EO.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

But not really. They were worshiping the Lord Jesus. They were directing their worship towards something they thought was a legitimate manifestation of Him. It was not. But nonetheless they were worshiping the Lord.

Didn't the Israelites in the desert believe that the golden calf was Yaweh?

Not so far as I know.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

But not really. They were worshiping the Lord Jesus. They were directing their worship towards something they thought was a legitimate manifestation of Him. It was not. But nonetheless they were worshiping the Lord.

Didn't the Israelites in the desert believe that the golden calf was Yaweh?

Not so far as I know.

I will have to look it up but didn't some say something to the effect of, "See, Israel, here is your god who lead you out of Egypt," with reference to the golden calf?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

'Magically?'

Who said that, other than you?

I see someone has already noted it was a gradual process.

How do sacraments "gradually" become fake. That is absurd.

The proper conditions for them to be sacraments slowly fade until they get to the point that the grace drains out of them.

That's what I am saying. Its silly. How can a sacrament have less and less grace. What? One day the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, the next it was 1/2 of the Body and Blood of Christ, then the next is was 1/4, etc. ect? Or one day a persons sins were totally forgiven in confession but the next the were only 29/32 forgiven?

It's already been explained by Anastasios that this is not what we mean. You're just grabbing at straws again.

No I am not. I am showing why your position doesn't work.

Seeing as how we never said that sacramental grace was at one point partially there, it's clearly a straw man. Fr. Anastasios clearly stated that it is "all or nothing". The gradual part of the process is the proper conditions for Sacraments disappearing and it happening at various times in various local churches. As to any particular local church, the sacramental grace is either there or not.

Post modified to prepend our admin's name with his proper clerical title. Please remember to give Fr. Anastasios (and all our priests) the respect due their priestly office by referring to them by their proper titles. Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut

« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 08:44:48 AM by PeterTheAleut »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com